I-1401 Wildlife Trafficking Initiative Passing in ALL Counties

[bigtex]

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

It only involves elephant, rhinoceros, tiger, lion, leopard, cheetah, pangolin, marine turtle, shark, or ray either: (a) Listed in appendix I or appendix II of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna; or (b) listed as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable on the international union for conservation of nature and natural resources red list of threatened species. Either in whole or their parts.

[bobcat]

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

It only involves elephant, rhinoceros, tiger, lion, leopard, cheetah, pangolin, marine turtle, shark, or ray either: (a) Listed in appendix I or appendix II of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna; or (b) listed as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable on the international union for conservation of nature and natural resources red list of threatened species. Either in whole or their parts.

Okay, thanks. Just doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

[Bob33]

I haven't voted yet, and probably won't, since I didn't  receive my ballot in the mail. I also haven't read anything about this initiative, other than what I've seen on here.

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

It shouldn't have any effect on hunting in Washington. It does criminalize sale of virtually any product containing ivory like jewelry, regardless of when it was purchased. It is primarily an attack of trophy hunting in places like Africa. The long term effect of efforts to ban or restrict legal hunting in places like Africa is that animal populations will suffer, along with a decline in local economies that depend on hunting related income.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-18/zimbabwe-elephant-population-dwindles-amid-threat-from-poachers
"In July, wildlife officials in Zimbabwe requested the U.S. reverse a ban on ivory imports it implemented a year ago citing concerns about the sustainability of the country’s elephant population. Zimbabwe’s elephant-hunting industry generates $14 million a year and helps control the population of 97,500 species that trample over trees and farmers’ fields, according to the country’s Parks and Wildlife Management Authority".

[pianoman9701]

I haven't voted yet, and probably won't, since I didn't  receive my ballot in the mail. I also haven't read anything about this initiative, other than what I've seen on here.

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

It affects hunters in WA. If you or anyone you know (like Bob33), ever hunt in Africa and pay to take trophies like elephant or Southern  Black Rhino, you'll now no longer be able to import them into the state. It should concern you that we're passing referendums on prohibiting not only legal hunting trophies, but laws which will actually endanger populations if not enough money goes into their conservation efforts. After the Cecil the Lion debacle, US residents were banned by our government from hunting elephants in Zimbabwe. Since the money stopped flowing, 64 elephants have been poached for their ivory. The country's wildlife manager blames the poaching on the ignorance of the American government to the good done by the money from American trophy hunters. Just because you don't do it doesn't mean we shouldn't protect someone else's right to do it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3293101/Dozens-elephants-killed-Zimbabwe-national-park-poisoned-rangers-protest-pay.html

[bigtex]

I haven't voted yet, and probably won't, since I didn't  receive my ballot in the mail. I also haven't read anything about this initiative, other than what I've seen on here.

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

It shouldn't have any effect on hunting in Washington. It does criminalize sale of virtually any product containing ivory like jewelry, regardless of when it was purchased. It is primarily an attack of trophy hunting in places like Africa. The long term effect of efforts to ban or restrict legal hunting in places like Africa is that animal populations will suffer, along with a decline in local economies that depend on hunting related income.

There are some exemptions such as the product is part of an antique, the item is gifted to someone via a will, or the parts are less than 15% of a musical instrument.

The interesting part is in the penalty section. Illegal acts involving product worth under $250 would face a gross misdemeanor charge, over $250 is a Class C Felony. However, there is a provision that says if you have a previous fish and wildlife conviction at the gross misdemeanor or felony level within the previous 5 years then they would face the felony charge.

[bigtex]

I haven't voted yet, and probably won't, since I didn't  receive my ballot in the mail. I also haven't read anything about this initiative, other than what I've seen on here.

So can someone tell me how exactly this affects hunting in Washington? Or even any hunting in the U.S. Doesn't it only have to do with endangered species?

It affects hunters in WA. If you or anyone you know (like Bob33), ever hunt in Africa and pay to take trophies like elephant or Southern  Black Rhino, you'll now no longer be able to import them into the state.

Not true.

The law has no effect on importation, only sale of products. John Doe can shoot a lion in Africa and bring it home to Ellensburg, but once he is in WA he cannot sell or trade any of the lion product.

(1) Except as authorized in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, it is unlawful for a person to sell, offer to sell,  purchase, trade, barter for, or distribute any covered animal species part or product.

[pianoman9701]

I took that as meaning if I bought a hunt and killed an elephant, I wouldn't be able to bring home the ivory. It seems to define importing the ivory as distribution.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Wife and I both voted no on this for the main reason that I've seen the Federal Endangered Species act be totally misused when it comes to sea mammals.  The studies and surveys that are used to determine if a species is endangered are way out of date. Case in point the sea lion problem in the Columbia River.

[bigtex]

I took that as meaning if I bought a hunt and killed an elephant, I wouldn't be able to bring home the ivory. It seems to define importing the ivory as distribution.

Nowhere in the initiative (now the law) is the word import....

The initiative defines distribute/distribution:
"Distribute" or "distribution" means either a change in possession for consideration or a change in legal ownership.

[Netminder01]

tag.

[JimmyHoffa]

BigTex, would it apply to an outfitter doing business in WA?  Can he still sell hunts in Africa for those species with a business based in WA?  Taxidermists?

[Bean Counter]

Paul Allen ever heard of the Lacey Act?

By this logic alone I'd be inclined to vote for it. I'd rather see the federal Lacey Act repealed and states do their own law enforcement. 

[bigtex]

BigTex, would it apply to an outfitter doing business in WA?  Can he still sell hunts in Africa for those species with a business based in WA?  Taxidermists?

Those are likely going to have to be decided by either case law or the opinion of the Attorney General's office, and I could probably see them going either way.

I think an outfitter would probably be ok because he is not exactly selling an animal but rather the hunt, and the animal is outside the state. So if John Doe books a hunt through a WA outfitter, goes to Africa comes back and the animal is never traded/sold/bartered/etc in WA then he should be fine.

Taxidermist could be interesting because obviously the animal will be in WA, it will change hands, and money will be involved. However, the question would be is can someone buy an animal that is already theirs, but has just been stuffed? Even if it is ruled taxidermists can no longer mount these animals then all you would have to do is go to Oregon or Idaho and have it mounted there, as long as there are no prohibitions in those states.

[Gamblin Guy]

Well let Cenci investigate the first case, the US Attorney has basically said he wont touch any case from WDFW anyway....

[bigtex]

Well let Cenci investigate the first case, the US Attorney has basically said he wont touch any case from WDFW anyway....

These cases will be prosecuted in state courts, not federal......